DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon National Park Foundation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon National Park Foundation Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon National Park Foundation Fall 2006 Report Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park (Phase II-B, Second Year of Phase II of Comprehensive Project) Revised May 2, 2007 – FINAL VERSION Arizona Water Protection Fund Contract Number 06-138WPF Prepared by: Lori J. Makarick and Kate Watters Backcountry Vegetation Program Grand Canyon National Park 823 North San Francisco, Suite B Flagstaff, AZ 86001-3265 Phone: (928) 226-0165 Email: [email protected] [email protected] I. Abstract...............................................................................................................................................3 II. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................4 a. Overview of project status ..............................................................................................................4 b. Justification for recent work ...........................................................................................................5 III. Methods............................................................................................................................................6 a. Area of interest in recent analysis...................................................................................................6 b. Project Logistics...............................................................................................................................8 Table 1. Phase II-B Project Areas List and Completion Status...........................................12 Table 2. Fall 2006 Trip Schedule..............................................................................................13 Table 3. Fall 2006 Hualapai Partnership River Trip Participant List................................13 Table 4. Fall 2006 Hualapai Partnership River Trip Itinerary ...........................................14 Table 5. Spring 2007 Proposed Field Schedule ......................................................................15 c. Invasive plant management methods and conditions ...................................................................15 Manual Removal..........................................................................................................................15 Girdle Method ..............................................................................................................................15 Cut Stump Method ......................................................................................................................15 Basal Bark Application ...............................................................................................................16 Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................16 Herbicide Use................................................................................................................................16 d. Analysis of methods and tests .......................................................................................................17 IV. Results ............................................................................................................................................17 a. Results of recent data collection...................................................................................................17 Table 6. Tamarisk Control Summary .....................................................................................18 Figure 2. Tamarisk Treatment by Method .............................................................................19 Table 7. Control Summary – Other Invasive Species............................................................20 Figure 3. Other Invasive Species Treated ...............................................................................20 Table 8. Locations Lacking UTM Readings ...........................................................................21 Table 9. Herbicide Use ...............................................................................................................22 Table 10. Volunteer Contribution to Project..........................................................................23 b. Project Matching Contribution.....................................................................................................26 c. Project Press ..................................................................................................................................26 V. Discussion and Conclusions ..........................................................................................................26 a. Discussions and conclusions about results comparing current and past control results ...........26 b. Discussion and conclusions about results with relation to related literature.............................27 VI. Management Recommendations ................................................................................................27 a. Overview of management options...............................................................................................27 b. Management recommendations and justification.......................................................................28 VII. Literature Cited...........................................................................................................................28 Appendix A. Representative Project Photographs Appendix B. Representative Project Photodocumentation – Available upon request Appendix C. Habitat Assessment Forms – Available upon request Appendix D. Project Mapping Appendix E. Project Press – Available upon request 2 I. Abstract Grand Canyon National Park’s backcountry seeps, springs and tributaries of the Colorado River are among the most pristine watersheds and desert riparian habitats remaining in the coterminous United States. These riparian systems deserve a high level of protection from invasive exotic plants. It is well documented that the encroachment of invasive plant species into natural areas is a serious problem worldwide, second only to habitat fragmentation. The Arizona Statewide Invasive Species Advisory Council developed a Statewide Invasive Species Management Plan and without argument, the board agreed that tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) poses one of the greatest threats to Arizona’s diverse landscapes. There is no doubt that Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) and Hualapai Tribal lands contain some of the most intact and productive riparian ecosystems in the state. These precious ecosystems are still becoming overrun with tamarisk and are in need of attention. Prior to the receipt of this current grant, all of the tamarisk management work was completed on GRCA lands, managed by the National Park Service (NPS), as stated in the 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act [an Act of Congress on January 3 (88 Stat 2089) (Public Law 93-620).] The National Park Service (NPS) and Grand Canyon National Park Foundation (GCNPF) recognize the need to work at the watershed level in order to maximize the effectiveness of management actions and to truly work on the landscape scale required to address this ecological issue. During this phase (Phase II-B), the tamarisk management project was expanded to include work on adjacent Hualapai Tribal lands that are outside of the park’s boundary. The Grand Canyon National Park Foundation (GCNPF) received a grant from the Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) to control invasive plants in selected riparian areas within Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) and adjacent Hualapai Tribal lands, allowing native plant communities to recover and persist. The grant supports a partnership between GCNPF, the NPS and the Hualapai Tribe and funds this project through December 31, 2008, with work occurring in 30 areas within GRCA and on adjacent Hualapai Lands. This work is Phase II-B of a large-scale backcountry invasive plant management program. The primary objectives of this phase of the overall project are to remove tamarisk and other invasive exotic plants from 30 tributaries of the Colorado River and to monitor the success of the tamarisk removal through pre- and post-removal monitoring. This project will significantly reduce invasive plant distribution within the treated area and allow native vegetation to reestablish without exotic plant competition. This work is a follow up of the very successful Phase I and Phase II-A, also funded by the AWPF, in which crews removed 193,496 tamarisk trees from 105 project areas. The lessons learned during the implementation of Phase I and II-A have allowed the Project Coordinator, Lori Makarick, to improve upon the management and monitoring portions of the project. To date, crews have removed 17,575 tamarisk trees including 13,508 seedlings, 2,822 saplings, and 1,245 mature trees from over 50 hectares in Phase II-B project sites. The total tamarisk canopy cover removed from the project sites was 5,715 square meters, allowing native vegetation access to critical resources such as nutrients, sunlight and water. This report includes all of the data from the backcountry and river trips completed in the fall of 2006. The AWPF Commission has funded all or a portion of this report. Please Note: The data and photographs for this report have all been entered into the project database,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Le of Contents
    A COMPILATION OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE 23rd ANNUAL MEETING, APRIL 46,1979 AT BOULDER CITY, NEVADA LE OF CONTENTS Page STATUS OF THE ZION DESERT BIGHORN REINTRODUCTION PROJECT-1978 Henry E.McCutchon ............................................................................. 81 TEXAS REINTRODUCTION EFFORTS STATUS REPORT-1979 Jack Kilpatric ................................................................................... 82 BlQHORM SWEEP STATUS REPORT FROM NEW MEXICO AndrewV.Sandoval .............................................................................. 82 LAVA BEDS BIGHORN SHEEP PROGRAM--UPDATE RobertA.Dalton ................................................................................. 88 UTAH BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT Grant K. Jense, James W. Bates and Jay A. Robertson. ............................................... .89 STATUS OF THE BIG HATCHET DESERT SHEEP POPULATION, NEW MEXICO Tom J. Watts ................................................................................... 92 ARIZONA BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT-1979 Paul M. Webb ................................................................................... 94 BIGHORN SHEEP POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR THE SOUTH TONTQ PLATEAU-GRAND CANYON Jim Walters .................................................................................... 96 BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT-NEVADA George K.Tsukamoto ........................................................................... 107 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1970-1980 ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue
    The Ol’ Pioneer The Magazine of the Grand Canyon Historical Society Volume 31 : Number 4 www.GrandCanyonHistory.org Fall 2020 In This Issue Suff’s Campaign Gains Steam at El Tovar ....... 3 The Saga of Louis D. Boucher ............................ 6 Helen Ranney ...................................................... 14 The Bulletin ......................................................... 15 President’s Letter The Ol’ Pioneer The Magazine of the Grand Canyon Historical Society This will be my final letter to our members, as my term as President ceases at the end of 2020. Since this is my second three-year term on the Board of Volume 31 : Number 4 Directors, I will be terming off the Board. Our by-laws ensure there is an Fall 2020 orderly transition within the Board of Directors. By January 2021, you our u members will have selected five new or reelected people, and they will begin The Historical Society was established to serve their first or second three-year terms. Keep watch for an election in July 1984 as a non-profit corporation email in November; we do not plan to mail paper ballots. to develop and promote appreciation, Six years ago when I attended my first Board meeting, as I learned about all understanding and education of the the great GCHS programs and projects, I quickly realized the importance of my earlier history of the inhabitants and new role. At that meeting, the call went out for volunteers to co-chair the 2016 important events of the Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon History Symposium. Helen Ranney had already volunteered The Ol’ Pioneer is published by the GRAND and I was aware of Helen’s great management and organizational talents from CANYON HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonto Trail: Boucher Trail to South Bass Trail
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Arizona Tonto Trail: Boucher Trail to South Bass Trail As canyon hikers gain experience many seek to broaden their wilderness horizons and inevitably thoughts turn to the Tonto Trail west from Boucher Creek to the South Bass Trail. This segment of the Tonto Trail is notorious, regarded by canyon experts as the most difficult and potentially dangerous section of this long transcanyon trail system. Main reason: It is almost 30 rough, unmaintained miles from the permanent water in Boucher Creek to the South Bass trailhead, and throughout that entire stretch there are no reliable water sources near the Tonto Platform level. None. Another thing: Once started, hikers are committed. The complete lack of bail-out routes to the rim between Boucher and South Bass means the only possibility for help is at the end of the trek. Combine these factors with the usual selection of Tonto Trail hazards (such as narrow, eroding trails, numerous passages near the brink of sizable cliffs, and a notable lack of shade) and it all adds up to a serious undertaking. Locations/Elevations Mileages Hermit trailhead (6640 ft / 2024 m) via Boucher Trail to Boucher Creek (2760 ft / 841 m): 9 mi (15.2 km) Boucher Creek, BN9 (2760 ft / 841 m) to Slate Creek, BO9 (3100 ft / 945 m): 5.25 mi (8.4 km) Slate Creek, BO9 (3100 ft / 945 m) to Turquoise Canyon, BO9 (2950 ft / 899 m): 9.3 mi (15 km) Turquoise Canyon, BO9 (2950 ft / 899 m) to Ruby Canyon, BP9 (3100 ft / 945 m): 5.8 mi (9.3
    [Show full text]
  • Otis R. Marston Papers: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf438n99sg No online items Otis R. Marston Papers: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff. The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2015 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Otis R. Marston Papers: Finding mssMarston papers 1 Aid Overview of the Collection Title: Otis R. Marston Papers Dates (inclusive): 1870-1978 Collection Number: mssMarston papers Creator: Marston, Otis R. Extent: 432 boxes54 microfilm251 volumes162 motion picture reels61 photo boxes Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: Professional and personal papers of river-runner and historian and river historian Otis R. Marston (1894-1979) and his collection of the materials on the history of Colorado River and Green River regions. Included are log books from river expeditions, journals, diaries, extensive original correspondence as well as copies of material in other repositories, manuscripts, motion pictures, still images, research notes, and printed material. Language: English. Access Collection is open to researchers with a serious interest in the subject matter of the collection by prior application through the Reader Services Department. Unlike other collections in the Huntington, an advanced degree is not a prerequisite for access The collection is open to qualified researchers. For more information, please visit the Huntington's website: www.huntington.org. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonto Trail: Boucher to South Bass
    National Park Service Grand Canyon U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon National Park Arizona Tonto Trail: Boucher Trail to South Bass Trail As canyon hikers gain experience many seek to broaden their wilderness horizons and inevitably thoughts turn to the Tonto Trail west from Boucher Creek to the South Bass Trail. This segment of the Tonto Trail is notorious, regarded by canyon experts as the most difficult and potentially dangerous section of this long transcanyon trail system. Main reason: It is almost 30 rough, unmaintained miles from the permanent water in Boucher Creek to the South Bass trailhead, and throughout that entire stretch there are no reliable water sources near the Tonto Platform level. None. Another thing: Once started, hikers are committed. The complete lack of bail-out routes to the rim between Boucher and South Bass means the only possibility for help is at the end of the trek. Combine these factors with the usual selection of Tonto Trail hazards (such as narrow, eroding trails, numerous passages near the brink of sizable cliffs, and a notable lack of shade) and it all adds up to a serious undertaking. Locations/Elevations Mileages Hermit trailhead (6640 ft / 2024 m) via Boucher Trail to Boucher Creek (2760 ft / 841 m): 9 mi (15.2 km) Boucher Creek, BN9 (2760 ft / 841 m) to Slate Creek, BO9 (3100 ft / 945 m): 5.25 mi (8.4 km) Slate Creek, BO9 (3100 ft / 945 m) to Turquoise Canyon, BO9 (2950 ft / 899 m): 9.3 mi (15 km) Turquoise Canyon, BO9 (2950 ft / 899 m) to Ruby Canyon, BP9 (3100 ft / 945 m): 5.8 mi (9.3
    [Show full text]
  • Mexican Spotted Owl Distribution and Habitat Within Grand Canyon National Park
    Natural Resource Management Mexican Spotted Owl Distribution and Habitat within Grand Canyon National Park David W.Willey, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, Montana 59715; [email protected] R.V. Ward, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon Science Center, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023; [email protected] Introduction Because of significant threats to its habitat, the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis luci- da) was listed as a “threatened species” in 1993 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1995). The Mexican spotted owl is widely distributed in montane and rocky canyonland ecosys- tems throughout the southwestern United States (Figure 1). The Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (USFWS 1995) listed the general inventory of Mexican spotted owls on National Park Service (NPS) lands as a primary research objective. In the Grand Canyon, the Mexican spotted owl uses the myriad tributary canyons of the Colorado River, where it nests and hunts in the steep rocky habitat distinctive of the Colorado Plateau province. Figure 1. Distribution of the three subspecies of spotted owls inhabiting western North America (from USFWS 1995). 328 Natural Resource Management The patterns of habitat use observed for to understand the distribution and (3) abun- spotted owls in Grand Canyon contrast dance of spotted owls in Grand Canyon sharply with the owl’s classic dependence on National Park. We believe that the success of old-growth conifer forests (Ganey and Balda spotted owls inhabiting the Grand Canyon is 1989; Willey 1995). Willey and Spotskey relevant to the owl’s conservation in the region (2000) examined the characteristics of spotted because these owls may represent an impor- owl breeding habitat at known nesting areas in tant source population to surrounding areas Grand Canyon National Park using a geo- (USFWS 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Crustal Segmentation, Composite Looping Pressure-Temperature Paths, and Magma-Enhanced Metamorphic fi Eld Gradients: Upper Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, USA
    Crustal segmentation, composite looping pressure-temperature paths, and magma-enhanced metamorphic fi eld gradients: Upper Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, USA Gregory Dumond† Kevin H. Mahan‡ Michael L. Williams Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA Karl E. Karlstrom Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA ABSTRACT pressures recorded at peak temperatures, subhorizontal shortening and subvertical and intensity of late-stage thermal spikes due extension during crustal thickening. The Paleoproterozoic orogen of the south- to local dike emplacement. High-precision western United States is characterized by ΔPT “relative” thermobarometry confi rms Keywords: Grand Canyon, P-T-t-D path, conti- a segmented, block-type architecture con- lateral temperature variations on the order nental crust, rheology, channel fl ow. sisting of tens of kilometer-scale blocks of of 100–250 °C with little to no variation in relatively homogeneous deformation and pressure. The Upper Granite Gorge thus INTRODUCTION metamorphism bounded by subvertical high- represents a subhorizontal section of low- strain zones. New fi eld, microstructural, and ermost middle continental crust (~0.7 GPa). Proterozoic rocks of southwestern North petrologic observations combined with pre- Results imply that the entire ~70-km-long America are part of a >1000-km-wide orogenic viously published structural and geochrono- transect decompressed from ~0.7 to ~0.3– belt that records the progressive southward logical data are most consistent with a tec- 0.4 GPa levels as one large coherent block in growth of Laurentia (Karlstrom et al., 2001) tonometamorphic history characterized by the Paleoproterozoic. (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase II-B Final Report 2008
    United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Grand Canyon National Park P.O. Box 129 Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023-0129 F54 (GRCA 8213) Ms. Evelyn Erlandsen Arizona Water Protection Fund 3550 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 Dear Ms. Erlandsen: Enclosed please find the revised and final October 31, 2008 deliverable for the project entitled “Management & Control of Tamarisk and Other Invasive Vegetation at Backcountry Seeps, Springs and Tributaries in Grand Canyon National Park (Second Year of Phase II of Comprehensive Project)”, Arizona Water Protection Fund (AWPF) Grant Number 06-138WPF. The deliverable falls under Task # 5 in the contract and is the final report for all of the work completed during this contract period. The funding that the Arizona Water Protection Fund has provided has allowed the park’s Backcountry Vegetation Program staff to accomplish critical preservation and restoration work in the park’s backcountry areas. With issues like invasive species, it is essential to disregard boundaries, and this project has provided the opportunity to work directly with the Hualapai Tribe and look at the greater Grand Canyon area as a whole, rather than segmented parts. I appreciate the support that you have provided as the project manager. Please consider this the final version of the report, one professionally bound, and one copy of just the report body itself to merge with the appendices you already have. I mailed two copies of the poster-size map separately. If you have any questions about the revised and final report, please contact me at (928)226-0165. Sincerely, Lori J.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Conditions on Wilderness Campsites: Seven Case Studies of Trends Over 13 to 32 Years
    Changing Conditions on Wilderness Campsites: Seven Case Studies of Trends Over 13 to 32 Years David N. Cole United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-300 June 2013 Cole, David N. 2013. Changing conditions on wilderness campsites: Seven case stud- ies of trends over 13 to 32 years. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-300. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 99 p. Abstract This report brings together seven case studies of trends in the number and condition of wilderness campsites over periods ranging from 13 to 32 years. Case examples come from five mountainous wilderness areas in the western United States: Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilder- ness in California, the Eagle Cap Wilderness in Oregon, the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho and the Selway-Bitterroot and Lee Metcalf Wilderness in Montana, as well as Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Caney Creek Wilderness in Arkansas. The case studies used two different research designs. In one design, small samples of campsites were selected and studied in detail, making it possible to detect relatively small changes in condition. The other approach involved inventorying all campsites in an area and collecting rudimentary data on the condition of each campsite. This approach provides insight into landscape-scale change in the number and condition of campsites but the relatively imprecise measures of campsite conditions do not provide reliable information on campsite change at the scale of individual sites. Most of these studies suggest that aggregate campsite impact increased for much of the latter twentieth century, but that by the first decade of the twenty-first century, this trend reversed.
    [Show full text]